NullPointer
Member
Definitely makes a strong argument for Episode 3 being the most comprehensive film of the series.He was also a big fan of star wars too fwiw
https://youtu.be/5r-R070qHYw
Definitely makes a strong argument for Episode 3 being the most comprehensive film of the series.He was also a big fan of star wars too fwiw
https://youtu.be/5r-R070qHYw
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The better trilogy of the two. Peter Jackson was a better filmmaker by the time he got around to the prequel, and frankly his source material was more amenable to adaptation. In Lord of the Rings, he had ploddingly reproduced Tolkien's least inspiring writing, the battle scenes, and inexplicably played down much that is great about the novel. By the time The Hobbit came around, he had an easier adaptation job because there are far fewer tedious set-piece battles to get through and the novel has a much lighter spirit.
The better trilogy of the two. Peter Jackson was a better filmmaker by the time he got around to the prequel, and frankly his source material was more amenable to adaptation. In Lord of the Rings, he had ploddingly reproduced Tolkien's least inspiring writing, the battle scenes, and inexplicably played down much that is great about the novel. By the time The Hobbit came around, he had an easier adaptation job because there are far fewer tedious set-piece battles to get through and the novel has a much lighter spirit.
Extended Fellowship
It's a flawless victory.Extended Fellowship
You're just going to have to live with the fact that not everybody agrees with you.
I'm mainly just wondering how someone can criticize LOTR for putting too much emphasis on the battles at the expense of other parts of the book while in the same breath praising The Hobbit movies, which added fight scenes left and right and turned the book's one big battle (which Bilbo was unconscious for most of) into the centerpiece of the final film.
So, just by comparison, you think the battles and set-pieces in The Hobbit trilogy are... fewer...? or better? Either position strains credibility.You're just going to have to live with the fact that not everybody agrees with you. In particular, the Return of the King disappointed me because it omits the great love that develops between Eowyn and Faramir as she nurses him, and we don't get so much as a squeak from the Scouring of the Shire.
And what do we get in that film and the Two Towers? Almost interminable bloody pointless battle scenes, every bit as tedious on screen as they are on the page.
Mainly balance, I think. The set pieces are mercifully scarce in the Hobbit. It's a triumph of storytelling, which Tolkien was good at, while Lord of the Rings shows him at his worst as a fan of mediaeval battle chronicles.
With the Hobbit movies, Peter Jackson had a classic, fairly short children's book which he basically kind of mutilated on account of corporate greed and a seemingly shaky understanding of the source material. Tolkien's Hobbit is an imaginative, lively little story that focuses entirely on Bilbo as the world expands before him, gradually beginning to change and adjust to the dangers he faces...as Bilbo eventually returns to his home a changed man. It's a neat, concise little story...far less interested in sweeping battle scenes (Tolkien knocked Bilbo unconscious during the Battle of Five Armies for a REASON, Jackson) than Bilbo himself as a character and his gradual emotional progression. And yet Jackson almost utilizes Bilbo in his films as a secondary side character, constantly getting lost in all the CGI shit and unnecessary sub-plots that cling to each frame of those films like a disease.
Instead, Jackson's films are about like, CGI Trolls with CGI goblins on their backs and Legolas doing some sweet as shit acrobatic moves and a Dwarf/Elf love triangle to help hook in that female audience and like Galadriel and Saruman doing some cool as shit special effects magic! Fuck yeah! Gotta have Sauron in there too.
Perfectly captured the spirit of the book, boys. Now what's for lunch?
Mainly balance, I think. The set pieces are mercifully scarce in the Hobbit. It's a triumph of storytelling, which Tolkien was good at, while Lord of the Rings shows him at his worst as a fan of mediaeval battle chronicles.
Trick question. The best funny is the full-trilogy recap by BigRingLover
This shit is literally one joke. ONE FUCKING JOKE. He runs variations on this one joke for six straight minutes, and it never not works.
BEAV
GUMBALL
Gummo the DILF
Same here.Unquestionably Fellowship of the Ring.
My favourite is Two Towers, though, although I know that makes me an oddity.
Rereading the books last year, I have to add that Fellowship is also best book.
They're not separate books (actually they're six books). Tolkien wrote one story and his publisher decided to split it into three volumes. The problem with shit like Battlestar and ASOIAF is that they weren't conceived in the same fashion as LOTR.Yup. To be fair, it's pretty common for larger fantasy/sci-fi works to start much stronger than they finish, be it television like Battlestar Galactica or novels like A Song of Ice and Fire. Tying up all the dangling threads while still delivering the sense that anything can happen is a tall order.
I mean, not wrong, but are we all just sleeping on the fact that Fellowship is also the only one that doesn't have Gollum? Potentially the best performance in the entire trilogy and a really well rounded character. FOTR is in no way an obvious choice if only for that reason alone.
Return of the King (extended) is the worst. Pacing is atrocious.
Extended Fellowship
Fellowship (extended or not) by Far. More consistent throughout, more memorable, and it had that "first movie magic" feel too.
Return of the King (extended) is the worst. Pacing is atrocious.
I thought I was crazy because no one else seems to think of this. The scene with Saruman hiding on the top of his tower near the beginning is so clunky and weird and unnecessary I felt surprised it even made it into an extended cut.
RotK Extended is the best LotR movie (vastly superior to the theatrical cut, somehow manages to feel shorter due to the added scenes improving the pacing and flow of the story), but Fellowship Extended is my favorite of the three. I acknowledge RotK as better filmmaking overall but Fellowship just occupies a special place in my heart for being so much better than I ever thought it was going to be. By the time of RotK I pretty much expected greatness.
The conclusion of the villain arc that dominated the first two films being cut from the theatrical was the only surprise related to that scene. It should have been in, it needed to be in, and it's a fine scene considering Jackson decided to (rightly) cut the Scouring of the Shire out of the adaptation.
You're just going to have to live with the fact that not everybody agrees with you. In particular, the Return of the King disappointed me because it omits the great love that develops between Eowyn and Faramir as she nurses him, and we don't get so much as a squeak from the Scouring of the Shire.
And what do we get in that film and the Two Towers? Almost interminable bloody pointless battle scenes, every bit as tedious on screen as they are on the page.
Unquestionably Fellowship of the Ring.
My favourite is Two Towers, though, although I know that makes me an oddity.
Same here.